The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition by Jamia Millia Islamia to get money from the University Grants Commission (UGC). The varsity had petitioned the court to direct the UGC to release funds for the Sarojini Naidu Centre for Women Studies. Jamia moved the application saying that the professor's salary could not be paid due to the non-grant of aid under the regular budget or under the scheme of 'Development of Women Studies in Indian Universities' by the UGC and sought to direct the commission to release the grant to the centre and to clear the deficit balance of Rs 6 crore under the scheme, according to a report by PTI.
However, the varsity was told that it cannot take the "shield" of the court to get money from the UGC. Instead, the court asked JMI why it could not pay the salary of this particular teacher, when all other officers, including the Vice-Chancellor and Registrar of the university, were getting salaries. "You sell your properties and pay off the money. You cannot take the shield of the court to get money from UGC. Ask your VC and Registrar to stop their salaries and pay this teacher. For all the other officers you have money to pay salary, for her you want our order to the UGC," a Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said, according to the PTI report.
The court was informed by the JMI standing counsel Pritish Sabharwal that the Sarojini Naidu Centre for Women Studies belonged to the UGC and was being run by the varsity under the Commission's scheme. The UGC had sent a letter to JMI for the merger of the centre. However, there was no word from the Commission on teaching posts and funds for paying the teachers' salaries, which JMI said had to come from the UGC. The Commission had stopped releasing the grants for the same, said JMI to the court.
The appeal, however, was not enough for the court. The bench noted that on the previous hearing in the case on July 6, the varsity had been asked whether the VC, Registrar and other teachers were receiving their salaries. The court was informed that these salaries were being paid by JMI. Based on this, the court said, "This application is nothing but an attempt to circumvent the (previous) order which was a consent order. We find no reason to entertain the application. It is rejected."
